joaocordeiro

Nice addition.
 
And i know some of you will argue that this should not be a priority. 
But remember programers are not all equal. 
The ppl skilled to do this are not necessarily skilled to program what you consider a "priority" 

I think you are right im some things while not that right in others. 
 
Yes i feel NQ has to change their decision making strategy. 
 
But in my view, they should not listen to any suggestion players make. 
Instead they should hire profecionals. 
Ppl that know what players want. Ppl that know how to gather statistics about player engagement and happiness. 
 
And after they have those professionals then they can look to our suggestions and analise those with data and experience, instead of guts. 

Well, i dont know about "geek". And i dont regard the "geek" as a offense. 
 
But you're definitely being a "diva" 
 
And please understand, i agree with you with your posts about Linux. 
 
But in this world, unlike what cartoons would make us believe, ppl are not allways right or allways wrong. 
 
And you are wrong with your "toxic" excuse. 
And not that we are not "toxic", we are, to the point NQ had to warn us, a few weeks ago. 
I myself got a serious warning about "trolling" recently. 
 
But that did not happen on this topic! 
 
In a capistalist world, ppl have the right to point linux's market share as a reason to not provide support. 
I dont agree, but its not a "rude" argument to make. 
 
I will say it again. 
There are a allot valid reasons to not play this game. 
I dont currently play it. 
 
But dont use this topic as a lame excuse... 
No one will stop playing a game because of writen stuff in a forum. 
 
And yes, i "dare" call your "reason" BS. Because it is BS and i got eyes to read.. 
 

There are allot of reasons to do this. 
But dont use this topic as a excuse. 
 
There are like 5 ppl replying to you. 
1 of them may be considered toxic, the others are just debating the topic. 
 
If you dont like the game cancel the subscription.
Just dont make up excuses. 

You need to link the agg to the PB and rename that to "agg" 

Not many ppl will praise you for the truth..

Buy hey, for what is worth you have my tnx.

Pets come at release as per the Kickstarter, and our road map delays have been explained in recent blogs. I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your expectations, but we're being as clear about that as we can be. 

No. 
There are several why's. 
 
1 - Players can be part of multiple org and orgs can have a near infinite number of players. Adding benefits just for joining a org would make ppl traffic org invites. 
So ppl would not be on a org for their vocation but just to get the bonus. 
Soon we would see orgs with the name "join me for level 5 engine boost" 
And ppl could then leave and join orgs every hour based on what boosts they would require at that time. 
 
2 - This would create a even bigger desavantage to new players compared to old players.
 
3 - The bonus is already there. 
Playing in a org will give you huge advantages compared to playing alone. 

No. 
There are several why's. 
 
1 - Players can be part of multiple org and orgs can have a near infinite number of players. Adding benefits just for joining a org would make ppl traffic org invites. 
So ppl would not be on a org for their vocation but just to get the bonus. 
Soon we would see orgs with the name "join me for level 5 engine boost" 
And ppl could then leave and join orgs every hour based on what boosts they would require at that time. 
 
2 - This would create a even bigger desavantage to new players compared to old players.
 
3 - The bonus is already there. 
Playing in a org will give you huge advantages compared to playing alone. 

Not for the casual player that keeps loosing battles.
 
And you know what DU needs the most? Casual players.....
They pay a full subscription, while being online a fraction of the time.
They have a fraction of assets than hardcore players, making their infrastructure requirements smaller.
They attract new subscriptions to the game. As they spend more time with ppl outside the community compared to hardcore players.

Heavier elements are more efficient for ion engines. (i would have to research why, but im sure i already saw why some while ago) 
 
But even if we could happily use H2 as ion fuel without any consequence, at most we should have rocket fuel at the same price of ion fuel. 
 
And not this BS premium prices like rocket fuel is made of gold... 

Not for the casual player that keeps loosing battles.
 
And you know what DU needs the most? Casual players.....
They pay a full subscription, while being online a fraction of the time.
They have a fraction of assets than hardcore players, making their infrastructure requirements smaller.
They attract new subscriptions to the game. As they spend more time with ppl outside the community compared to hardcore players.

Not for the casual player that keeps loosing battles.
 
And you know what DU needs the most? Casual players.....
They pay a full subscription, while being online a fraction of the time.
They have a fraction of assets than hardcore players, making their infrastructure requirements smaller.
They attract new subscriptions to the game. As they spend more time with ppl outside the community compared to hardcore players.

Not for the casual player that keeps loosing battles.
 
And you know what DU needs the most? Casual players.....
They pay a full subscription, while being online a fraction of the time.
They have a fraction of assets than hardcore players, making their infrastructure requirements smaller.
They attract new subscriptions to the game. As they spend more time with ppl outside the community compared to hardcore players.

But never more expensive than ion fuel.

Rocket fuel should be H2 + O2 or CH4 + O2, Basically the most common elements in the universe. While ion fuel requires heavier and much rarer elements.
 
If a rocket tank has 1000 L inside and an Ion tank has 1000L inside, then the rocket fuel should be 100 times cheaper than Ion fuel.

Yea. The way rockets are implemented is definitely a mistake....
Most transport rockets can be active for 2 to 10 minutes. Yet NQ decided to have 5 second rockets....
RL rockets use very inexpensive fuel compared to ion engines. Yet NQ decided to make rocket fuel the most expensive.
Rocket engines are cheaper to manufacture ( in relation to its thrust) than ion engines. Yet NQ decided to make them a premium item....

To me, rockets should have longer burn times, lower thrust and very cheap fuel.
Making rockets occupy the role of a "work in all environments but very inefficient" engine.
Instead of a premium engine that 95% of the players won't use.

Then give a small 120% thrust window to regular engines.
 

When topic created with a title already on the frontier of what is acceptable, we can expect the comments to circle around that frontier. Several times crossing it. 
 
While i considere OK to point out the flaws of NQ's actions. It is definitely not ok to assert what NQ and its employees feel. 
 
We can say "the actions taken by NQ, on subject A, do not appear to have our feedback into account" 
 
It is not OK to say "NQ does not care about us" 
 
You can say "i dont feel cared by NQ". 
You cannot say "NQ does not care about me" 
 
Only one entity can talk about how they feel, them selves. 
 
 
 
On another point, what is the positive outcome ppl expect from this rude escalation of criticism? 
 
Will they work harder and more committed every time ppl acuse them for not caring? 

When topic created with a title already on the frontier of what is acceptable, we can expect the comments to circle around that frontier. Several times crossing it. 
 
While i considere OK to point out the flaws of NQ's actions. It is definitely not ok to assert what NQ and its employees feel. 
 
We can say "the actions taken by NQ, on subject A, do not appear to have our feedback into account" 
 
It is not OK to say "NQ does not care about us" 
 
You can say "i dont feel cared by NQ". 
You cannot say "NQ does not care about me" 
 
Only one entity can talk about how they feel, them selves. 
 
 
 
On another point, what is the positive outcome ppl expect from this rude escalation of criticism? 
 
Will they work harder and more committed every time ppl acuse them for not caring? 

No virtual currency will ever be the future unless a government sponsors it. 
 
No goverment will ever sponsor a virtual currency that they cant control. 
 
And you may think other wise but your thinking fails once you realize that new currencies can be created and adopted over the old ones. 
Making the old ones obsolete. 
 
So only a goverment backed currency will stand out against newer currencies. 
 
 
But that does not mean we cant invest in crypto. But its not an investment in the future. 
Its more like a casino bet. 

I never said 32gb was a requirement. 
 
But with memory leaks all over the place, the memory usage will slowly increase. 
 
From my m8s experience, players with 16 or less were having crashes in a 3 hours interval.
While ppl with 32 or more were were able to play for 5 hours and usually had to restart the game duo to performance issues instead of crashing. 
 
Of couse that several other factors are involved in here. 
Other crap installed in your computer, like streaming, anti-virus, having 9999 tabs opened in Chrome... 
Gameplay style. Traveling to markets frequently, using surrogates to instantly load new planets. Or simply staying still in a empty place. 
Cache settings and speed. 
Page file settings. 
Internet speed and latency
 
All those things will influence performance and how often a game crashes. 
 
But having more ram will help. 

I would say that 16gb is dangerously near the limit. 
All ppl i know saw a big improvement in stability in upgrading to 32GB.
 
Having a NVME ssd is also a good upgrade if you dont have it already. 
 

I never had a de-sync making me fall from a ship. I did fall many times from ships for being careless. 
 
I had this happened because of 4 issues:
1 - player forgot to buy a respawn node
2 - respawn node was not activated
3 - respawn node got destroyed in crash
4 - server had some heavy maintenance and respawn nodes were reseted. 
 
The only thing that is actually NQ fault is the 4th.
Every thing else was the player's responsibility. 
 
Also, as was already stated, NQ will respond to any uncommon bugs. And if this occurrences become frequent, then making NQ aware of the problem is beneficial to the game. 

I fully agree with you. 
 
I sugest that there is a menu, when placing a core, where you choose out of 3 forms:
1 - cube - current cube with 100%x100%x100%
2 - square box with 140%x140%x50% (usefull for winged planes) 
3- pole with 200%x70%x70%

To give you a free pice of land where you can park your stuff without any fear of rule change or new mechanics. 

I blame most of this game's feedback failure on pre alpha ppl and some alpha dudes. 
 
And yes nq did hear you allot. 
Surrogates were nerfed because pre alpha feedback. 
T4 and T5 npc trading was removed because of your pre alpha feed back. 
Tiers of industry and schematics were introduced because of pre alpha feedback. 
 
You know it as well as i do that a certain group of ppl. Not only pre alpha, some alpha org leaders were also there, had a "special" connection with the devs, during alpha en the beginning of beta. 
 
You know most radical changes that the game suffered were sponsored by that group.... 
 
You know that that group was given replies to their feedback. 
 
I wander if you were a part of that group. Because if you were, you are not in the moral position to complain about transparency of feedback...